The Gradey Dick Thread Part 2

[Scase]

Those of us that hang out in the draft threads know that drafting a one dimensional shooter is a risk, because it is often the skill that is hardest to translate immediately and then the player has little else to keep them on the floor.

But, there's like no security whatsoever in who is drafting. This is a bogus concept that fans and some media throw around. If you keep the job long enough you'll have no shortage of absolute turkeys and passing on franchise altering talent. This could be the case with Gradey, but he's so young that I wouldn't get too heated. It's not even January into his rookie year.

It's all about risk management IMO. Drafting a 1 trick pony with as you mentioned, a skill that is hardest to translate, vs picking a player that shows skill in multiple aspects of their game, is less about guaranteed security, and more about the likelihood of it working out.

A guy who does 5 things ok, has a better chance to succeed than a guy who does well at a singular thing. Maybe Gradey turns it all around, but it seems like more and more it was an ill advised pick.

Quite the opposite. The guys who succeed tend to come into the league with at least one Grade A NBA skill.

In any case, I wouldn't have said Grady was a "one trick pony". Early on, I was impressed with how he used his length to make good passes, rebound and get steals. For a skinny 19 year old, he seemed to have a lot of tools.

We're only getting frustrated because EVERYTHING the front office has done since drafting Scottie has not worked out. They traded down in 2022 to draft Koloko - he can't play, and neither can Thad. Precious looked great - until he stopped looking great. Otto seemed like a perfect signing, but he can't play. The defensible decision not to trade Fred at the deadline now seems stupid. Schroder seemed like a good signing, but is a classic case of "live by the Dennis, die by the Dennis". McDaniels has no NBA skill, and can't see the floor. And there's Jak - $20 mill AAV for a bench, non-shooting big?

We'd more easily forgive Dick his rookie foibles if just one, f'in thing had gone right in the last two seasons.

I think this all depends on where you draft them. A 13th pick typically has a "meh" chance of really turning into something, and having a player that can do a multitude of things at an NBA level is much more valuable than a player who can do one thing. The former in those scenarios can always carve out a career in the NBA, solid role player if you will. The latter is very much a bane or boon situation, if you cannot do that elite skill in the NBA, you offer nothing of value.

It's why everyone hates on GTJ when he goes cold, because he provides nothing to the team when he can't score. The 1 trick pony aspect I think is a lot more useful for higher lotto picks, cause they typically actually have an elite transferrable skill. Donovan Mitchell is pretty much entirely one sided, he can score and that's it. He will never have difficulty finding a place in the NBA, but he is also REALLY good at it.

Players like Korver etc. were 1 trick ponies, but for Korver to have a long career like he did, he basically had to be one of the best at that skill in NBA history. He entered the league shooting 39%, and 16 years later, was shooting 42%. That is an aberration, players like dick are way more likely to amount to journeymen than any legitimate starter.

I obviously think claiming he's a bust already is a ridiculous statement to make so early on. But if he can't put it together to have the one thing he supposedly does well...go well, he's going to be out of the league pretty quickly. The same can't be said about a rookie with skills in multiple areas, who can give you net neutral minutes on the court.

[tecumseh18]

It's all about risk management IMO. Drafting a 1 trick pony with as you mentioned, a skill that is hardest to translate, vs picking a player that shows skill in multiple aspects of their game, is less about guaranteed security, and more about the likelihood of it working out.

A guy who does 5 things ok, has a better chance to succeed than a guy who does well at a singular thing. Maybe Gradey turns it all around, but it seems like more and more it was an ill advised pick.

Quite the opposite. The guys who succeed tend to come into the league with at least one Grade A NBA skill.

In any case, I wouldn't have said Grady was a "one trick pony". Early on, I was impressed with how he used his length to make good passes, rebound and get steals. For a skinny 19 year old, he seemed to have a lot of tools.

Shooting is still the most fickle. An elite ballhandler is going to be an elite ballhandler in the NBA. He might stink at everything else, but that skill will translate. Similar to rebounding. Shooting is really something that can come and go, and we see that with even reputable NBA shooters. The issue is that with the shooter the archetype is that they aren't actively creating for others, so their ballhandling/playmaking skills are undeveloped, and typically they can't defend because shooting is so valued that coaches will coach 'around' a weak defender if he makes other people's day easier on offense.

Which is probably why pure shooters should not be lottery picks. Even Korver was a second rounder. Joe Harris, Corey Kispert, Duncan Robinson were all outside the lottery. At this moment, Masai would probably kill to have Grady end up as good as Korver.

But some go in the lottery. I guess Adam Morrison was considered a "pure shooter". Certainly JJ Redick - taken #11 IIRC - was. Note that Morrison played 3 years in college, while Korver and Redick played all four seasons. Klay was taken in the Grady/Redick low lottery range, and of course became a generational shooter and great defender. He played 3 years in college.

It's always a crap shoot. A lesson may be to never take a one and done pure shooter in the lottery, because you really don't know what you're going to get. Much better to take a high upside multi-tool guy like Scottie - or Bilal Coulibaly - and teach them how to shoot. Norman Powell fit that model. I think OG could shoot a bit in college, but he's another example.

[billy_hoyle]

Quite the opposite. The guys who succeed tend to come into the league with at least one Grade A NBA skill.

In any case, I wouldn't have said Grady was a "one trick pony". Early on, I was impressed with how he used his length to make good passes, rebound and get steals. For a skinny 19 year old, he seemed to have a lot of tools.

Shooting is still the most fickle. An elite ballhandler is going to be an elite ballhandler in the NBA. He might stink at everything else, but that skill will translate. Similar to rebounding. Shooting is really something that can come and go, and we see that with even reputable NBA shooters. The issue is that with the shooter the archetype is that they aren't actively creating for others, so their ballhandling/playmaking skills are undeveloped, and typically they can't defend because shooting is so valued that coaches will coach 'around' a weak defender if he makes other people's day easier on offense.

Which is probably why pure shooters should not be lottery picks. Even Korver was a second rounder. Joe Harris, Corey Kispert, Duncan Robinson were all outside the lottery. At this moment, Masai would probably kill to have Grady end up as good as Korver.

But some go in the lottery. I guess Adam Morrison was considered a "pure shooter". Certainly JJ Redick - taken #11 IIRC - was. Note that Morrison played 3 years in college, while Korver and Redick played all four seasons. Klay was taken in the Grady/Redick low lottery range, and of course became a generational shooter and great defender. He played 3 years in college.

It's always a crap shoot. A lesson may be to never take a one and done pure shooter in the lottery, because you really don't know what you're going to get. Much better to take a high upside multi-tool guy like Scottie - or Bilal Coulibaly - and teach them how to shoot. Norman Powell fit that model. I think OG could shoot a bit in college, but he's another example.

How many one and done pure shooters have been drafted high? I can't think of any.

Curry was drafted high, but he was always a PG with some serious playmaking and handles.

I think Gradey projected to be a bit of a good bball IQ, shooter, not a pure shooter. He was a highschool player of the year wasn't he?

What if he was the next Booker?

[Scase]

Shooting is still the most fickle. An elite ballhandler is going to be an elite ballhandler in the NBA. He might stink at everything else, but that skill will translate. Similar to rebounding. Shooting is really something that can come and go, and we see that with even reputable NBA shooters. The issue is that with the shooter the archetype is that they aren't actively creating for others, so their ballhandling/playmaking skills are undeveloped, and typically they can't defend because shooting is so valued that coaches will coach 'around' a weak defender if he makes other people's day easier on offense.

Which is probably why pure shooters should not be lottery picks. Even Korver was a second rounder. Joe Harris, Corey Kispert, Duncan Robinson were all outside the lottery. At this moment, Masai would probably kill to have Grady end up as good as Korver.

But some go in the lottery. I guess Adam Morrison was considered a "pure shooter". Certainly JJ Redick - taken #11 IIRC - was. Note that Morrison played 3 years in college, while Korver and Redick played all four seasons. Klay was taken in the Grady/Redick low lottery range, and of course became a generational shooter and great defender. He played 3 years in college.

It's always a crap shoot. A lesson may be to never take a one and done pure shooter in the lottery, because you really don't know what you're going to get. Much better to take a high upside multi-tool guy like Scottie - or Bilal Coulibaly - and teach them how to shoot. Norman Powell fit that model. I think OG could shoot a bit in college, but he's another example.

How many one and done pure shooters have been drafted high? I can't think of any.

Curry was drafted high, but he was always a PG with some serious playmaking and handles.

I think Gradey projected to be a bit of a good bball IQ, shooter, not a pure shooter. He was a highschool player of the year wasn't he?

What if he was the next Booker?

IIRC Gradey won HS player of the year in the midst of the pandemic where so many players have had their growth stunted. All in all, I think players like what Gradey is projected to be, can as tecumseh said, can be found outside the lotto.Lotto should be drafting BPA and for potential, Gradey fits neither of those.

[billy_hoyle]

Which is probably why pure shooters should not be lottery picks. Even Korver was a second rounder. Joe Harris, Corey Kispert, Duncan Robinson were all outside the lottery. At this moment, Masai would probably kill to have Grady end up as good as Korver.

But some go in the lottery. I guess Adam Morrison was considered a "pure shooter". Certainly JJ Redick - taken #11 IIRC - was. Note that Morrison played 3 years in college, while Korver and Redick played all four seasons. Klay was taken in the Grady/Redick low lottery range, and of course became a generational shooter and great defender. He played 3 years in college.

It's always a crap shoot. A lesson may be to never take a one and done pure shooter in the lottery, because you really don't know what you're going to get. Much better to take a high upside multi-tool guy like Scottie - or Bilal Coulibaly - and teach them how to shoot. Norman Powell fit that model. I think OG could shoot a bit in college, but he's another example.

How many one and done pure shooters have been drafted high? I can't think of any.

Curry was drafted high, but he was always a PG with some serious playmaking and handles.

I think Gradey projected to be a bit of a good bball IQ, shooter, not a pure shooter. He was a highschool player of the year wasn't he?

What if he was the next Booker?

IIRC Gradey won HS player of the year in the midst of the pandemic where so many players have had their growth stunted. All in all, I think players like what Gradey is projected to be, can as tecumseh said, can be found outside the lotto.Lotto should be drafting BPA and for potential, Gradey fits neither of those.

That's a really good point about the pandemic... Not sure how that really impacts things, but it was a 'change' for sure.

For BPA, I think Gradey had a legitimate case for that at 13. I'm not really sure how you could argue otherwise. That's pretty much pure hindsight scouting.

I wanted Whitmore after he dropped, but Gradey was the other dropper.

Can you find a couple legitimate mock draft that had Gradey going after 13?

Not an attack here, but I think you saying you need to take BPA, and then a pretty easily argued BPA selection ends up falling flat on his face to start his career, is kinda the same issue people were saying in the Detroit tanking thread. The BPA sometimes, inexplicably doesn't translate. Simple as that. It's easy to say they weren't BPA after 30 games. Easy to say 'bad management', but Masai has absolutely been an excellent drafter.

I actually still like the Dick pick. Not going well so far, but I thought it was a reasonable pick at the time. Will certainly have more patience than a season or two.

[Scase]

How many one and done pure shooters have been drafted high? I can't think of any.

Curry was drafted high, but he was always a PG with some serious playmaking and handles.

I think Gradey projected to be a bit of a good bball IQ, shooter, not a pure shooter. He was a highschool player of the year wasn't he?

What if he was the next Booker?

IIRC Gradey won HS player of the year in the midst of the pandemic where so many players have had their growth stunted. All in all, I think players like what Gradey is projected to be, can as tecumseh said, can be found outside the lotto.Lotto should be drafting BPA and for potential, Gradey fits neither of those.

That's a really good point about the pandemic... Not sure how that really impacts things, but it was a 'change' for sure.

For BPA, I think Gradey had a legitimate case for that at 13. I'm not really sure how you could argue otherwise. That's pretty much pure hindsight scouting.

I wanted Whitmore after he dropped, but Gradey was the other dropper.

Can you find a couple legitimate mock draft that had Gradey going after 13?

Not an attack here, but I think you saying you need to take BPA, and then a pretty easily argued BPA selection ends up falling flat on his face to start his career, is kinda the same issue people were saying in the Detroit tanking thread. The BPA sometimes, inexplicably doesn't translate. Simple as that. It's easy to say they weren't BPA after 30 games. Easy to say 'bad management', but Masai has absolutely been an excellent drafter.

I actually still like the Dick pick. Not going well so far, but I thought it was a reasonable pick at the time. Will certainly have more patience than a season or two.

The opinion of BPA I think obviously differs from person to person, and is pretty subjective when it comes to lower draft picks. personally I think 1 trick ponies are virtually never BPAs.

[billy_hoyle]

IIRC Gradey won HS player of the year in the midst of the pandemic where so many players have had their growth stunted. All in all, I think players like what Gradey is projected to be, can as tecumseh said, can be found outside the lotto.Lotto should be drafting BPA and for potential, Gradey fits neither of those.

That's a really good point about the pandemic... Not sure how that really impacts things, but it was a 'change' for sure.

For BPA, I think Gradey had a legitimate case for that at 13. I'm not really sure how you could argue otherwise. That's pretty much pure hindsight scouting.

I wanted Whitmore after he dropped, but Gradey was the other dropper.

Can you find a couple legitimate mock draft that had Gradey going after 13?

Not an attack here, but I think you saying you need to take BPA, and then a pretty easily argued BPA selection ends up falling flat on his face to start his career, is kinda the same issue people were saying in the Detroit tanking thread. The BPA sometimes, inexplicably doesn't translate. Simple as that. It's easy to say they weren't BPA after 30 games. Easy to say 'bad management', but Masai has absolutely been an excellent drafter.

I actually still like the Dick pick. Not going well so far, but I thought it was a reasonable pick at the time. Will certainly have more patience than a season or two.

The opinion of BPA I think obviously differs from person to person, and is pretty subjective when it comes to lower draft picks. personally I think 1 trick ponies are virtually never BPAs.

I agree. I just don't think Gradey was billed as a one trick pony.

Ringer had him 12th, with a shades of Reggie Miller and Bojan Bogdanovic comp. Which matches the eye test I had of Dick in college. Slippery shooter with some playmaking chops, and good feel for the game. That's not a one trick pony. Especially the Reggie comp. That's about as ideal as a 2 guard your gonna get to surround Barnes with.

[Scase]

That's a really good point about the pandemic... Not sure how that really impacts things, but it was a 'change' for sure.

For BPA, I think Gradey had a legitimate case for that at 13. I'm not really sure how you could argue otherwise. That's pretty much pure hindsight scouting.

I wanted Whitmore after he dropped, but Gradey was the other dropper.

Can you find a couple legitimate mock draft that had Gradey going after 13?

Not an attack here, but I think you saying you need to take BPA, and then a pretty easily argued BPA selection ends up falling flat on his face to start his career, is kinda the same issue people were saying in the Detroit tanking thread. The BPA sometimes, inexplicably doesn't translate. Simple as that. It's easy to say they weren't BPA after 30 games. Easy to say 'bad management', but Masai has absolutely been an excellent drafter.

I actually still like the Dick pick. Not going well so far, but I thought it was a reasonable pick at the time. Will certainly have more patience than a season or two.

The opinion of BPA I think obviously differs from person to person, and is pretty subjective when it comes to lower draft picks. personally I think 1 trick ponies are virtually never BPAs.

I agree. I just don't think Gradey was billed as a one trick pony.

Ringer had him 12th, with a shades of Reggie Miller and Bojan Bogdanovic comp. Which matches the eye test I had of Dick in college. Slippery shooter with some playmaking chops, and good feel for the game. That's not a one trick pony. Especially the Reggie comp. That's about as ideal as a 2 guard your gonna get to surround Barnes with.

I gotta say, I just don't see it.

[NotMyKawhi]

The dick bust

[ATLTimekeeper]

Shooting is still the most fickle. An elite ballhandler is going to be an elite ballhandler in the NBA. He might stink at everything else, but that skill will translate. Similar to rebounding. Shooting is really something that can come and go, and we see that with even reputable NBA shooters. The issue is that with the shooter the archetype is that they aren't actively creating for others, so their ballhandling/playmaking skills are undeveloped, and typically they can't defend because shooting is so valued that coaches will coach 'around' a weak defender if he makes other people's day easier on offense.

Which is probably why pure shooters should not be lottery picks. Even Korver was a second rounder. Joe Harris, Corey Kispert, Duncan Robinson were all outside the lottery. At this moment, Masai would probably kill to have Grady end up as good as Korver.

But some go in the lottery. I guess Adam Morrison was considered a "pure shooter". Certainly JJ Redick - taken #11 IIRC - was. Note that Morrison played 3 years in college, while Korver and Redick played all four seasons. Klay was taken in the Grady/Redick low lottery range, and of course became a generational shooter and great defender. He played 3 years in college.

It's always a crap shoot. A lesson may be to never take a one and done pure shooter in the lottery, because you really don't know what you're going to get. Much better to take a high upside multi-tool guy like Scottie - or Bilal Coulibaly - and teach them how to shoot. Norman Powell fit that model. I think OG could shoot a bit in college, but he's another example.

How many one and done pure shooters have been drafted high? I can't think of any.

Curry was drafted high, but he was always a PG with some serious playmaking and handles.

I think Gradey projected to be a bit of a good bball IQ, shooter, not a pure shooter. He was a highschool player of the year wasn't he?

What if he was the next Booker?

What would you consider 'high'? Stauskas went 8th. McLemore (Kansas, oof) went 7th, Ross went 8th (although some thought he had defensive potential). Typically they're not going top 5 for reasons previously stated, it's just very difficult to become a 'star' if this role maintains. Add defense and at best you're Klay Thompson, who wouldn't lead any franchise as a #1 option and that's the goal with a top 5 pick.

Gradey was a pure shooter profile, even in high school. If anything it might be an award that predicts someone gets overrated in the draft if you scan through past winners. Same with the Kansas bias. Aside from a very obvious MVP, Bill Self coached players typically don't meet expectations in the NBA.

[billy_hoyle]

Which is probably why pure shooters should not be lottery picks. Even Korver was a second rounder. Joe Harris, Corey Kispert, Duncan Robinson were all outside the lottery. At this moment, Masai would probably kill to have Grady end up as good as Korver.

But some go in the lottery. I guess Adam Morrison was considered a "pure shooter". Certainly JJ Redick - taken #11 IIRC - was. Note that Morrison played 3 years in college, while Korver and Redick played all four seasons. Klay was taken in the Grady/Redick low lottery range, and of course became a generational shooter and great defender. He played 3 years in college.

It's always a crap shoot. A lesson may be to never take a one and done pure shooter in the lottery, because you really don't know what you're going to get. Much better to take a high upside multi-tool guy like Scottie - or Bilal Coulibaly - and teach them how to shoot. Norman Powell fit that model. I think OG could shoot a bit in college, but he's another example.

How many one and done pure shooters have been drafted high? I can't think of any.

Curry was drafted high, but he was always a PG with some serious playmaking and handles.

I think Gradey projected to be a bit of a good bball IQ, shooter, not a pure shooter. He was a highschool player of the year wasn't he?

What if he was the next Booker?

What would you consider 'high'? Stauskas went 8th. McLemore (Kansas, oof) went 7th, Ross went 8th (although some thought he had defensive potential). Typically they're not going top 5 for reasons previously stated, it's just very difficult to become a 'star' if this role maintains. Add defense and at best you're Klay Thompson, who wouldn't lead any franchise as a #1 option and that's the goal with a top 5 pick.

Gradey was a pure shooter profile, even in high school. If anything it might be an award that predicts someone gets overrated in the draft if you scan through past winners. Same with the Kansas bias. Aside from a very obvious MVP, Bill Self coached players typically don't meet expectations in the NBA.

Stauskas and Ross were Sophomores. Klay was a junior.

McLemore was a Fr., but was he really touted as a pure shooter? Dude was a massive athlete too, I don't think any scouting report had him as a 1 dimensional pure shooter.

I don't know how people can say 'don't select a freshman pure shooter in the lottery' based on a sample of essentially zero. That's my whole point.

[TorontoBarneys]

This was most likely just a flat out bad pick. Trade him before the entire league realizes he sucks.

[MonkBatter42]

That's a really good point about the pandemic... Not sure how that really impacts things, but it was a 'change' for sure.

For BPA, I think Gradey had a legitimate case for that at 13. I'm not really sure how you could argue otherwise. That's pretty much pure hindsight scouting.

I wanted Whitmore after he dropped, but Gradey was the other dropper.

Can you find a couple legitimate mock draft that had Gradey going after 13?

Not an attack here, but I think you saying you need to take BPA, and then a pretty easily argued BPA selection ends up falling flat on his face to start his career, is kinda the same issue people were saying in the Detroit tanking thread. The BPA sometimes, inexplicably doesn't translate. Simple as that. It's easy to say they weren't BPA after 30 games. Easy to say 'bad management', but Masai has absolutely been an excellent drafter.

I actually still like the Dick pick. Not going well so far, but I thought it was a reasonable pick at the time. Will certainly have more patience than a season or two.

The opinion of BPA I think obviously differs from person to person, and is pretty subjective when it comes to lower draft picks. personally I think 1 trick ponies are virtually never BPAs.

I agree. I just don't think Gradey was billed as a one trick pony.

Ringer had him 12th, with a shades of Reggie Miller and Bojan Bogdanovic comp. Which matches the eye test I had of Dick in college. Slippery shooter with some playmaking chops, and good feel for the game. That's not a one trick pony. Especially the Reggie comp. That's about as ideal as a 2 guard your gonna get to surround Barnes with.

Yup, I think you're pretty spot-on here. As you said, Dick WAS considered the BPA when he "fell" to us at 13. I must say though that I personally never understood why he was ranked so highly in the draft to begin with. Also, why did he fall? I didn't follow him closely at all at Kansas, but did watch him play in March Madness, and remember coming away completely underwhelmed. I didn't get the hype of a guy who seemed like just a college role player. After my initial "meh" feeling when we drafted him, I started to buy into the "maybe Masai/Bobby DID make the right selection" narrative. That ended when I saw him play in Summer League. A "pure shooter" wing like him is supposed to dominate in the SL, but dude was abysmal. Not only was he bricking, but he was having very hard time putting the ball on the floor, even in the open court, without getting stripped or bumped off his spots, and just easily stopped in general. Now in the NBA, he can't even get his shot off. I just don't see the untapped "potential" and growth. I also just don't buy into the NBA thinking that being 21 or 22 in the draft makes a player a dinosaur and therefore, an unattractive selection. For example, I had long thought that Jaime Jaquez would be able to make immediate contributions in the NBA, but also knew that NBA GM's would see him as "old" with a "high floor/low ceiling". The obsession with youth, measurements and potential, over actual demonstrated skill and productivity, is what leads to selections like Bruno.

[ciueli]

I don't think Gradey was the clear best player available at 13, some good evidence to that effect is I didn't see anyone on this board clamoring for us to draft him at 13. I believe a lot of posters here thought we would take Bufkin, and the announcers on the broadcast didn't seem to think it was an obvious pick either, as they liked Jordan Hawkins or Cam Whitmore better. Most seemed to think it was an ok pick, but not necessarily a case of us taking the obvious BPA.

[hyper316]

This was most likely just a flat out bad pick. Trade him before the entire league realizes he sucks.

Too late

[pingpongrac]

I don't think Gradey was the clear best player available at 13, some good evidence to that effect is I didn't see anyone on this board clamoring for us to draft him at 13. I believe a lot of posters here thought we would take Bufkin, and the announcers on the broadcast didn't seem to think it was an obvious pick either, as they liked Jordan Hawkins or Cam Whitmore better. Most seemed to think it was an ok pick, but not necessarily a case of us taking the obvious BPA.

This is a bit of hindsight though. No one was clamouring for us to get Gradey at 13 because he was just outside of our range by most projections/rankings. It was almost universally expected for him to go in the 8-12 range while a lot of scouts and insiders expected him to go to Orlando at #11.

[Ell Curry]

I don't think Gradey was the clear best player available at 13, some good evidence to that effect is I didn't see anyone on this board clamoring for us to draft him at 13. I believe a lot of posters here thought we would take Bufkin, and the announcers on the broadcast didn't seem to think it was an obvious pick either, as they liked Jordan Hawkins or Cam Whitmore better. Most seemed to think it was an ok pick, but not necessarily a case of us taking the obvious BPA.

I think this was probably more about everyone assuming Dick would be gone by Orlando at #11, who instead took a similar player in Jett Howard (height + shooting + age good, everything else not so good).

Whitmore I think would have gone top 10 without the injury concerns, so I have no idea how to evaluate that really.

Dick has been terrible so far, but I can't pretend I wasn't reasonably pleased we got a shooter expected to go around #10-11 at #13.

Most likely one of the guards who went back to back to back a few picks later in Bufkin, Keyonte George and Hood-Schiffino will end up being quite good in 2-4 years, and with us not having a top 40 guard in the NBA or any prospects (I guess Trent could still get there as he's only 24, but I doubt it. Flynn would be a shock and while I like Freeman-Liberty, we're probably talking about a ceiling of Terrence Mann or another solid bench guard here), that will look like a huge miss, but I have no idea which of those guys it will be. Bufkin didn't really have any obvious weaknesses and developed really nicely and progressively at Michigan (lost freshman, solid 1st half of sophomore season, then was excellent for his final 10-15 games), George has confidence and skill and Hood-Schiffino has okay size and pick and roll game so maybe he can become a useful bullying combo guard type, but I have no idea which guy it will be.

I think the idea is that it was like the Poeltl pick back when we took him. Not exciting, but a solid NBA player at a position of need (center then, shooting now) with a later lotto pick because there wasn't a Siakam type sleeper they loved or an obvious Anunoby style slip.

We should probably have traded up for Cason Wallace if someone with 12M in cap space or a big TPE would have taken Boucher's deal for us to move up to #10 and then we take on Bertans for the year, though it's hard to say if we could have gotten that done.

[ForeverTFC]

I don't think Gradey was the clear best player available at 13, some good evidence to that effect is I didn't see anyone on this board clamoring for us to draft him at 13. I believe a lot of posters here thought we would take Bufkin, and the announcers on the broadcast didn't seem to think it was an obvious pick either, as they liked Jordan Hawkins or Cam Whitmore better. Most seemed to think it was an ok pick, but not necessarily a case of us taking the obvious BPA.

This is a bit of hindsight though. No one was clamouring for us to get Gradey at 13 because he was just outside of our range by most projections/rankings. It was almost universally expected for him to go in the 8-12 range while a lot of scouts and insiders expected him to go to Orlando at #11.

Consensus also isn’t something you want to measure by. Scottie was against consensus as was Pascal.

Whitemore was probably a tough pick for them to make because they never worked him out. It was telling that he fell to the Rockets, a team that had seen him while everyone else passed. Assume folks didn’t have his medicals and so hard to make that bet. In regards to Hawkins, all the draft primers I read had Gradey in a tier above him.

[pingpongrac]

I don't think Gradey was the clear best player available at 13, some good evidence to that effect is I didn't see anyone on this board clamoring for us to draft him at 13. I believe a lot of posters here thought we would take Bufkin, and the announcers on the broadcast didn't seem to think it was an obvious pick either, as they liked Jordan Hawkins or Cam Whitmore better. Most seemed to think it was an ok pick, but not necessarily a case of us taking the obvious BPA.

This is a bit of hindsight though. No one was clamouring for us to get Gradey at 13 because he was just outside of our range by most projections/rankings. It was almost universally expected for him to go in the 8-12 range while a lot of scouts and insiders expected him to go to Orlando at #11.

Consensus also isn’t something you want to measure by. Scottie was against consensus as was Pascal.

Whitemore was probably a tough pick for them to make because they never worked him out. It was telling that he fell to the Rockets, a team that had seen him while everyone else passed. Assume folks didn’t have his medicals and so hard to make that bet. In regards to Hawkins, all the draft primers I read had Gradey in a tier above him.

No, it's not the only thing you go off of. But IIRC, the board was mostly happy with the Gradey pick because he was still available and he was seen as something we needed too. It seems like everyone is turning on him and calling him a bust after ~20 games though. He has admittedly been terrible aside from a few preseason games and a couple of good nights in the NBA, but he's still so young.

[ciueli]

I don't think Gradey was the clear best player available at 13, some good evidence to that effect is I didn't see anyone on this board clamoring for us to draft him at 13. I believe a lot of posters here thought we would take Bufkin, and the announcers on the broadcast didn't seem to think it was an obvious pick either, as they liked Jordan Hawkins or Cam Whitmore better. Most seemed to think it was an ok pick, but not necessarily a case of us taking the obvious BPA.

This is a bit of hindsight though. No one was clamouring for us to get Gradey at 13 because he was just outside of our range by most projections/rankings. It was almost universally expected for him to go in the 8-12 range while a lot of scouts and insiders expected him to go to Orlando at #11.

Of course most people on this board are going to support him after the pick is made, that's what fans do, the guy is on our team now, we all have to collectively believe he's going to be a great player for us.

Before the draft, no one was talking about how great it would be if Gradey Dick dropped to us, and right before our pick was in I didn't see anyone salivating over getting him in a Raptor uniform, it was all posts excited about us drafting Kobe Bufkin, Keyonte George, or Cam Whitmore. Post draft grades on various websites didn't give the Raptors a top grade for getting Gradey slightly later than some mock drafts had him getting drafted, I just didn't see him being a consensus pick at 13 like some here are making out.